California Chrome becomes the 12th horse since 1979 to win the first two legs of the Triple Crown, but falter in the Belmont Stakes. Affirmed, in 1978, remains the last horse to complete the Triple Crown.

California Chrome, breaking from the No. 2 post position, was put in a tracking position along the rail by jockey Victory Espinoza, as Commissioner set the early pace.

Earlier

As the field turned for home, Espinoza manuevered California Chrome to the outside for a clear run but the horse came up flat in the stretch. "A little tired. I thought he was...turning for home," Espinoza said. "I was just waiting to have the same kick like he always had before, and today he was a little bit flat down the lane."

It was later reported that Chrome cut his right front hoof during the race.

After the race, California Chrome's co-owner Steve Coburn was upset that his horse was beaten by a newcomer to the Triple Crown trail. "If you got a horse, run him in all three [races]," Coburn said in an interview with NBC. "It's all of nothing because it's not fair to these horses that have been running their guts out." Coburn said that if a horse, such as Tonalist, didn't have enough points to qualify for the Kentucky Derby, he shouldn't have been eligible to run in any of the other Triple Crown races.

"Our horse had a target on his back," Coburn said. "They won't run in the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness. They'll wait until the Belmont... This is a coward's way out."

California Chrome, Ride on Curlin and General a Rod were the only three horses to run in all three legs of the Triple Crown.

Tonalist paid $20.40 for a $2 win bet, covering the 1 1/2-mile distance in 2:28:52. Tonalist, a son of Tapit, won the Peter Pan Stakes in May, and becomes the first horse since A.P. Indy in 1992 to complete the Peter Pan/Belmont double.

The connections of Tonalist expressed disappointment that the 102,199 fans in attendance didn't see history.

Tonalist (11), ridden by Joel Rosario, races to the finish line en route to winning the 146th running of the Belmont Stakes.
Getty Images

"I'm a little bit upset about California Chrome," Tonalist jockey Joel Rosario said. "[Tonalist is] just kind of a big horse and he has one long stride," he said. "[He] keeps on going and going, keeps on coming, and he got the job done today."

In the last decade, only one horse who won either the Derby or the Preakness has gone on to win the Belmont: Afleet Alex in 2005. Since 1978, the Kentucky Derby winner has run the Belmont Stakes 27 times, but only two have won.

From "Changing the Frequency in Racing", Government Law Center at Albany University Law School, 2003:

"The median time between starts went from 11 days in 1973 to 29 days in 2003. Horses in 1973 frequently ran on a week of rest or less. Now virtually no horses come back to race within a week."

In other words, the Triple Crown was not "grueling" relative to the horse's normal competitive schedule as it is now, and if a horse had not run in the prior TC events, that horse had run somewhere. This supports the argument to align the Triple Crown with current Rest/Work ratio custom.

Until the structure of the Triple Crown changes, racing "fairness" lies with the horse's owner. If the presence of fresh legs presents overwhelming competitive disadvantage, it is the owner's prerogative to scratch, and is arguably a duty as the pace given by fresh legs presents increased stress relative to a race in which all the horses are running tired. Chrome's cut hoof may be indicative of this last point.

Triple means THREE !! I don't think that means that only three horses should run all three which was the case . If you have not run in the first two races you should not be allowed to run in the Belmont . That's what is called a level playing field .

The other horses come into the game late and have a better chance of beating a better horse . The fame that goes with that means higher stud fees and that's what the big wigs are all about,not a fair race .

I'm in the camp that if you are a Triple Crown winner that you are VERY special, which to me means you have beaten all commers. Those that have run all races and/or those who have run just this one. That's what makes a triple crown winner so great. It's ok to lower the standards from that, but that will also lower the greatness of the achievement........just my opinion.

The question is, what is the tradition and has it been violated in recent years? What the owner said was, he'll never see another Triple Crown winner in his lifetime since fresh horses are competing against horses that have three big races in rapid succession. That implies that this is a new phenomenon and that in the old days these fresh horses were not being used. But, is it true? I don't know, but I doubt the "rules" have changed in recent years.

I agree with Charles. If the THRA is worried about a declining fan base, here's a clue -- LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD for the Triple Crown. Only horses that finish the Derby qualify for the Preakness, and only horses that finish both the Derby and Preakness qualify for the Belmont. Sham did not skip the Preakness to try and sabotage Secretariat, neither did Alydar skip the Preakness to derail Affirmed's bid. Fans want their favorites to have a fair chance to win.

i think it's unfair when most of the horses don't run the Triple Crown and just run some of the races. It takes away fr the Triple Crown. The horses that are eligible for the Kentucky Derby should run all the races. Apples to Apples.

@Frank Hastings The fact that there is a triple crown has no bearing on the individual races. Each has its own purse and owners can pick and choose what gives them the best payoff. Nothing wrong with that. If an owner wants to go for the triple crown, that's his decision, his horse just needs to be better than all the rest on each of the three tracks. That's not too much to ask for such a prestigious award.

@Roy Horton I would have to agree with you. The track conditions at Belmont for the race were fast. The winning time of 2:28.52 is more than 4 seconds off Secretariat's winning time in 1973 (near perfect track conditions) and two seconds slower than Affirmed in 1978. Seattle Slew's time in 1977 was a second slower than this year's winning time, but that was in possibly the worst conditions of any Belmont race in the last forty years and even at that was comparable to the time California Chrome clocked on a fast track.

@Jack Ritchie That's what I was thinking Jack. If Affirmed and other Triple Crown winners in years past had to run against "fresh" horses, then I don't see what the fuss is about. On the other hand, if the rules changed (I doubt they have, given the tradition involved), then they have a point.

@Tim Downey@David. E., Jr. Roberts I would disagree with your comparison since the ironman is a single competition with one time versus three distinctly separate races. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be a golfer electing to compete in the British Open after skipping the Masters and the US Open--although the events are more spread out than the triple crown, they are comparable in that the courses tend to be of different designs and playing conditions and weather conditions much as the triple crown races are in different states requiring travel to the sites and weather conditions can differ from race to race. Perhaps it should be required that any golfer playing in a "major" has to compete in (and make the cut in) other tournaments the two, three or four consecutive weeks before the major so they don't get an unfair benefit of being well rested.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.